(2) Centre for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,. Queensland ..... Teacher Education International Conference, San Antonio, CA. Corcoran, E.
Evaluating a Specific Mentoring Intervention for Preservice Teachers of Primary Science Peter Hudson1 & 2 & Campbell McRobbie 2 (1) NSW Department of Education and Training (2) Centre for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, Queensland University of Technology
Abstract: Using a two-group posttest only design, 60 final year preservice teachers (control group) and 12 final year preservice teachers (intervention group) from the same university were compared after a four-week professional experience program. The intervention group received a mentoring program for developing primary science teaching practices. The survey measured both the control group and intervention group perceptions of their mentoring in primary science across previously established mentoring factors (i.e., personal attributes, system requirements, pedagogical knowledge, modelling, and feedback).
Results
indicated that those in the intervention group perceived they had received more mentoring experiences on each of the five factors, and ANOVA results indicated that these differences were statistically significant for the first four of the five factors.
It is argued that the specific mentoring intervention designed for
developing specific aspects of primary science teaching has the potential to enhance the degree and quality of teaching experiences within a preservice teacher’s professional experiences.
1
Primary science education reform has long been perceived as a problem (Burry-Stock & Oxford, 1994; Bybee, 1997; Tytler, Conley, Sharpley, & Waldrip, 2000). This problem has been identified in England (Lunn & Solomon, 2000), Australia (Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, 2001), and in the United States (National Commission, 1996; Gallagher, 2000). As enhancing science teaching practices appears to be a key focus for reform, science education of preservice primary teachers in modern science teaching practices is seen as a “critical component in the systemic approach necessary to make real and lasting change a classroom reality” (Raizen & Michelson, 1994, p. 7). However, while it is evident that science teaching practices have changed little despite reform efforts (Goodrum et al., 2001; Hernandez, Arrington, & Whitworth, 2002; Tobin, Tippins, & Hook, 1994), reform efforts must continue to target “the improvement of teacher practices in all teachers” (Riggs & Sandlin, 2002, p. 15), and this includes preservice teachers. Indeed, science teacher preparation is considered a key part of systemic reform in the United States (Yager, 1996).
The professional experience practicum has taken on further importance in the recent literature on preservice teacher education (Power, Clarke, & Hine, 2002). It has become more school-based and has “increased the responsibilities” assigned to mentors (Sinclair, 1997, p. 309). Mentoring provides opportunities for preservice teachers to “learn from and with others and engage in the co-construction of meanings” (Beattie, 2000, p. 4). Indeed, mentoring is a collaboration between mentors (supervising or cooperating teachers) and mentees (preservice teachers), and is considered to be one avenue for implementing educational reform measures (Crowther & Cannon, 1998).
2
However, the quality of mentoring is also a concern, as despite the importance placed on mentoring preservice teachers, there are numerous educators who have outlined the inadequacy of mentoring from tertiary educators and school-based mentors (e.g., Gaffey, Woodward, & Lowe, 1995; Long, 1997; Zeichner, 2001). Mentors need to thoughtfully organise preservice teachers’ professional experiences, which requires an awareness of mentoring practices that may affect their mentees’ performances. For example, Carlson and Gooden (1999, pp. 5-7) claim a major factor in mentoring preservice teachers is “the behavior of those near them who are in instructional or supervisory roles,” and that an effective way to encourage assimilation of teaching skills is for mentors to model teaching practices. Obviously, this can be difficult if the mentor is not experienced in modelling specific teaching practices, such as those associated with a reformed view of science education.
Wideen, Mayersmith, and Moon (1998) note that preservice teacher intervention programs have the potential appear to change preservice teachers’ belie fs about teaching. This is particularly pertinent if effective practice is derived from “beliefs about teaching and learning” (Tobin, Tippins, & Gallard, 1995, p. 54). Further, change in teaching practices is unlikely to happen unless intervention programs are developed (Shayer, 1991). To this end, mentors within intervention programs that are designed to change preservice teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning may “be seen as important agents of change” (Edwards & Collison, 1996, p. 134).
3
Educators need to take affirmative steps towards achieving the key goals of primary science education reform, which includes the implementation of specific mentoring strategies to promote this reform. Even though there is limited empirical evidence of successful mentoring interventions in primary science teaching, mentors who have trialled science mentoring material feel more confident in raising issues, expect specific learning outcomes, place greater emphasis on pedagogical knowledge, and improve their own skills of observation (Jarvis, McKeon, Coates, & Vause, 2001). Just as “effective instructional strategies enable teachers to be able to teach for conceptual change and understanding” (Kyle, Abell, & Shymansky, 1992, p. 33), so too can specific mentoring strategies in the field of science education aid the development of preservice teachers’ understanding of primary science education. Further, research is needed to “examine mentors’ actual performance as mentors in relationship to the mentor preparation they receive” (Riggs & Sandlin, 2002, p. 14).
The mentoring component of this study builds upon two decades of research (e.g., Edwards & Collison, 1996; Little, l990; Loucks-Horsely, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998; Schon, 1983), and takes into account the research conducted on self-efficacy by Bandura (1981, 1986, 1997), Enochs and Riggs (1990), and Pajares (1992), and the theory of constructivism (e.g., von Glasersfeld, 1989, 1998). In particular, this study builds upon the findings of Ganser (1991, 1996, 2000), Kesselheim (1998), and Jarvis et al. (2001) in relation to mentoring and primary science teaching. This last study in particular, is currently exploring specific mentoring strategies in primary science
4
preservice education.
However, sequential and systematic development of specific
mentoring in primary science teaching is yet to be devised, implemented, and evaluated.
The mentoring intervention employed in this study aimed to develop the mentor’s mentoring knowledge and skills of primary science teaching and, simultaneously, enhance the mentee’s primary science teaching. It (referred to in the field as the “mentoring program”) was designed to be collaborative with the provision of specific mentoring strategies on developing teaching and learning strategies in primary science teaching (Hudson & Skamp, 2003).
The aim of this study was to investigate perceptions of mentees and mentors about mentoring practices in primary science teaching. More specifically, to: 1. compare perceptions of final year preservice teachers involved in a specific mentoring intervention (i.e., a mentoring intervention designed to facilitate the development of specific mentoring strategies) with those who are involved in current mentoring practices typically found in professional experiences; and, 2. investigate mentors’ perceptions of this specific mentoring program.
Design and Methods The study reported here is part of a larger study investigating mentoring in preservice primary science teaching. This component of the study was a mixed method design with a randomised two-group posttest only design (control group and intervention group) investigating the perceptions of mentees’ mentoring in primary science teaching
5
through a validated survey instrument after their professional experiences.
The
intervention design adhered to the principles outlined by Rothman and Thomas (1994). The design also included interview data on mentors’ perceptions of the mentees’ development as primary science teachers and their reflections on the mentoring program. Mentoring in this study was investigated through a constructivist perspective on learning how to teach primary science.
The “Mentoring for Effective Primary Science Teaching” (MEPST) instrument in this study evolved through a series of preliminary investigations on mentoring for effective primary science teaching. Steps for developing and validating the instrument included small-scale interviews with mentors and mentees (n=10) on their perceptions of mentoring preservice primary science teaching at the conclusion of a three-week professional experience. Development and trial of a preliminary survey based on the literature and previous interviews was piloted on 21 first-year preservice teachers and later with 59 final year preservice teachers at the conclusion of their professional experiences. The content of each survey item included a statement that: (1) contained a literature-based mentoring skill or practice or behaviour that could be recognised in a word or phrase; and (2) allowed a complete response to the item on a 5-point Likert scale. To further substantiate the instrument’s validity, five specialists (one in the field of science education, one in the field of mentoring, one in the field of survey construction, and two statistical analysts) examined the items on the proposed survey.
6
The results of these preliminary studies led towards the development of a 45-item survey with five postulated factors (i.e., personal attributes, system requirements, pedagogical knowledge, modelling, and feedback). This survey was then administered to final year preservice teachers (331 complete responses) from nine Australian universities at the conclusion of their professional experiences.
Five factors were
confirmed through confirmatory factor analysis with each factor having a Cronbach alpha
reliability
greater
than
.70
(i.e.,
“Personal
Attributes”=.93,
“System
Requirements”=.76, “Pedagogical Knowledge”=.94, “Modelling”=.95, and “Feedback” =.92). The final theoretical model produced good “goodness of fit” indices (? 2=1335, df=513, CMIDF=2.60, IFI=.922, CFI=.921, RMR=.066, RMSEA=.070; p
